D&D 5E Kender as an appropriate race

[Majoru Oakheart]

This is a fork from another thread where Mouseferatu said I should create another thread to hear his opinion. So here it is.

My point is, it may be a concept that only a narrow pool of players can play well. But it still comes down to the problem being the players, not the archetype.

I'm not convinced. The archetype pretty much says "Please ruin a campaign". Technically, a good player could ignore that advice and still run a fun character. But this involves the player having to correct the problem rather than there not being a problem to begin with.

No one will ever convince me "character who has ZERO fear at all to the point where they aren't afraid of being thrown in jail, being eaten by a dragon or their friends being angry at them and has a HUGE amount of curiosity and a complete inability to understand consequences or property ownership" is a good idea for a character.

Tass got away with it because the author kept moderating his behavior using kind of kludgey reasoning where Tass would say that he wasn't "afraid" of Raistlin because Kender don't have fear or a preservation instinct, but he...for some reason didn't want to make Raistlin angry. But the books were fairly clear that his behavior was odd and that Tasslehoff was likely fairly rare among Kender because was actually developing a sense of fear. Which is why he stayed alive so long.

He met a bunch of Kender who certainly didn't have the same ability to emulate fear that Tass seemed to have and there were stories of Kender who would just jump off cliffs to see what would happen.

Plus, no matter how many times property ownership was explained to Tass, he NEVER understood it. I understand playing a race with an interesting cultural background like "We don't have a concept of property ownership" but Kender seem to have a genetic trait that makes them incapable of grasping certain concepts AT ALL. Their brains just didn't function like anyone else's. They all have brain damage that can't be fixed. You can imagine a Dwarf that grows to understand why elves like trees and flowers. The idea that a Kender stops stealing, understands property rights and gets a sense of self preservation is absurd since it it built into them. It also makes them short humans. They are entirely defined by the things that cause problems with campaigns.

Which is why certain aspects of Kender can make for a fun character, that character only stays fun by selectively ignoring other traits of Kender. Otherwise the first time your Kender says "I'm just going to walk into that city of Drow and say hi and see what happens" then either he's dead or the entire party is when they try to help him.

Addition: This wasn't in the original post, but I'd like to say any race who worship a figure for his ability to be completely careless and blow himself up shouldn't logically stay alive long enough to be a PC race at all.

 

[El Mahdi]

I agree. Without significant concessions by the player, Kender are unfeasible as written. This is why it's one of the few absolute proscriptions I have in my games. No Kender...Period!

 

[Wik]

I think I'm with Mouse on this one. If you get a player who can keep the idea that they're playing a game in mind, then yeah, it's totally viable.

It's no different than, say, paladins. If you've got a player who knows that they're playing a game with other players, hopefully she'll roleplay a code in a fun way, but not in such a way that it steps over other players' toes because "that's what my character would do".

Playing characters like this would take a lot of forethought... but it's totally doable.

As for the "fearless" kender - you're probably right. They wouldn't survive in the real world. Luckily, it's D&D, and there's a pretty huge suspension of disbelief. I mean, they're adventuring right beside dragonborn, tieflings, and gnomes.

Gnomes, man. GNOMES!

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think I'm with Mouse on this one. If you get a player who can keep the idea that they're playing a game in mind, then yeah, it's totally viable.

the problem is I agree with [MENTION=5143]Majoru Oakheart[/MENTION] at that point why not make the race rules and fluff equal the way to play it instead of how it is... if you play as it is written it is a problem...

It's no different than, say, paladins. If you've got a player who knows that they're playing a game with other players, hopefully she'll roleplay a code in a fun way, but not in such a way that it steps over other players' toes because "that's what my character would do".

my problem is when you play a paliden 'by the book' it CAN be a problem or it CAN be good... when you play a kender by the book it messes everything up... it's only if you DON'T PLAY BY THE BOOK...

As for the "fearless" kender - you're probably right. They wouldn't survive in the real world.

yup but worse then that is what it forces on others...

in my mind the number 1 rule of RPGs is not to force something on others... if I make a character that bad mouths and distrusts palidens, or wizards, or elves I may be seen as a jerk or racisist (classist?!?) HOWEVER not only are kenders pretty annoying, but they have a protective 'everyone except jerks like them'... so if I have a store owner say "Hey no kenders," it is not accurate to the fluff of the race... Even other PCs are expected to LIKE them...

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I think I'm with Mouse on this one. If you get a player who can keep the idea that they're playing a game in mind, then yeah, it's totally viable.

The thing is, I actually think we agree, on principle. I think you CAN play a Kender that works in a game. But only by downplaying or selectively ignoring the fearless thing and curbing your stealing to only unimportant things no one cares about. Which, to me, is no longer playing a Kender. Basically it means you are playing a Halfling with a lot of curiosity and a small streak of cleptomania but who is considerate enough to their friends to avoid getting them into any real trouble.

Though, that's not what the description of Kender in the book says. My point is that following the description in the book precisely as written create an impossible character whose only purpose it is to annoy everyone around him then get himself and probably his friends killed in the process. Failing to get yourself and your friends killed almost immediately is bad roleplaying when it comes to Kender. But if someone roleplays them badly on purpose, they can be tolerable.

I'm just not a big fan of a race that you have to purposefully roleplay badly in order to have as a legitimate PC.

 

[Wik]

The thing is, I actually think we agree, on principle. I think you CAN play a Kender that works in a game. But only by downplaying or selectively ignoring the fearless thing and curbing your stealing to only unimportant things no one cares about.

Which, as you pointed, is exactly what they did to Tas. It also seems to be what they do with every "Player-Character" type kender that you see in the novels. They differ from the baseline. It's a pretty common trope in fantasy novels. Look at Drizzt.

I think it's expected that if you're a PC kender, you're going to have an ounce of fear and will only play out the kleptomania for gags. I agree that it's annoying, but for some people, it's a lot of fun.

Which, to me, is no longer playing a Kender. Basically it means you are playing a Halfling with a lot of curiosity and a small streak of cleptomania but who is considerate enough to their friends to avoid getting them into any real trouble.

So. Kender were originally created, if I know my D&D history, as a way to get around the fact that technically "halflings" are kind of a ripoff from Tolkien, and they wanted Dragonlance Novels. So, really, kender really ARE just halflings with a lot of curiousity and a touch of kleptomania. Which is how they were often played in D&D anyways... back in the days when halflings really only worked as thieves.

My point is that following the description in the book precisely as written create an impossible character whose only purpose it is to annoy everyone around him then get himself and probably his friends killed in the process.

Not really. The book speaks in generalizations. It's your job as a player to figure out where you stand in that. Tas is a good example of what a kender CAN be in an adventuring party.

For what it's worth, I think the "Fearless" thing is something more along the likes of what people say about kender (and kender say about themselves) rather than something that is entirely true. I think they mostly don't feel fear... but there's a bit there, and they just don't realize that's what it is.

Failing to get yourself and your friends killed almost immediately is bad roleplaying when it comes to Kender.

No, it makes perfect sense. After all, if you got your friends killed immediately after starting play, it'd beg the question - "why didn't this putz die earlier?"

Either that, or "Wait. Why are we playing Gamma World?"

But if someone roleplays them badly on purpose, they can be tolerable.

I'm just not a big fan of a race that you have to purposefully roleplay badly in order to have as a legitimate PC.

But you don't. You're just choosing what to accentuate, and what to let slide. It's kind of lame to expect an "all kender are like this" and go with it. "Lack of fear" and "Kleptomania" can be pretty huge roleplaying hooks. I mean, it could be a character who is super curious and outgoing who has a thing for stealing shoes (and only shoes!). Or it could be a character who is fascinated with magic and has wandering fingers (sound familiar?). Or maybe it's someone who has a healthy dose of fear (for a kender) and tries to overcompensate with some classic kenderliness... and who doesn't believe in "stealing" but rather "Redistributing the wealth" and moving party items around so everyone's carrying the same amount of gear.

All of those would be valid kender. Woe to the party that has all three adventuring alongside them, though.

 

[Arial Black]

Most players know what PvP looks like. If you cast magic missile on your mate, or he hits you upside the head with his greataxe, that's PvP and everyone knows it,

It's up to each group to decide whether or not PvP is acceptable. I hate it, personally.

So, basically, PvP is 'using the abilities that you would use on your enemies, and using them on your friends'. Unless the player agrees to it.

Those abilities include, but are not limited to:-

* attacking them with weapons for real or temporary damage
* casting spells at them, whether to damage them or charm them or any other spell you cast at enemies to defeat them
* steal from them!

The trouble with the way kender are written is that they steal from their friends, but don't know that this is wrong. Worse, the player of the kender does know that stealing from friends is PvP, but thinks that 'it's okay because I'm a kender and it's cute'.

It's as 'okay' for a kender PC to steal from the barbarian PC as it is for the barbarian to axe the kender to death. If you think that it's okay for your kender to steal from my barbarian, then it's okay for my barbarian to kill your kender.

This attitude led to The Great Kender Cull in my Dragonlance campaign. 'Genocide' is such an ugly word. There are no kender left for players to play, and even Takhesis feels that the world is a nicer place.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I once created my own kender like race for PCs who wanted kenders... (this was late 2e into early 3e)

they were high dex and cha low con and str haflings with elven like features they counted as fey and were low level psychics... as such they had a not quite hive mind and no concept of personal ownership, BUT COULD LEARN SUCH IN GAME FROM OTHERS, and they had kind of like a cast system where most 'adventurers' you saw were from the cast that had a severely lax fear response (bonus vs fear not immunity) and a wander lust... how ever there were other casts that were psycic or farmer or even warriors...

some how I have always been told my Uatar where not a good replacement for kenders... I wonder if I should write them up for 5e...

 

[TheCosmicKid]

My problem with kender is that the way they're written doesn't seem to leave much room for character diversity. Their character class and personality are pretty much set in stone. You can be either Tasslehoff, or Tasslehoff-except-you're-a-girl. Where are the absentminded and avuncular kender wizards, the bitter and temperamental kender fighters, the obsessed self-perfectionist kender monks? Hell, where are the rogues who are quiet professionals, or brazen gangsters, or jumpy survivors, or flamboyant swashbucklers, or anything at all other than childish kleptomaniacs?

(Sidenote: The spelling of "Tasslehoff" is just... wrong.)

 

[Minigiant]

As written, Kender are not a PC race unless you don't actually act like a kender. You have to ignore all aspects of being a kender or be in situations where your kenderness cannot be invoked (combat). Once you start doing that, you're a quirky halfling.

Much how dwarves aren't PC races in my setting as they are all mind controlled by the dwarven kings. Only dwarven kings have true free will. Not even dwarven ghosts. No dwarf has true loyalty to anyone else but the last dwarven king to mentally command him or her. All dwarves follow the mental commands of their king, go insane, or die trying. So dwarves are unplayable.